Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Haiku 4.5
59
Ling 2.6 Flash
44
Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ling 2.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 262K context window.
Coding
+46.3 difference
Claude Haiku 4.5
Ling 2.6 Flash
$1 / $5
$0.1 / $0.3
N/A
209.5 t/s
N/A
1.07s
200K
262K
Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ling 2.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 262K context window.
Claude Haiku 4.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 59 to 44. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Haiku 4.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 73.3 against 27.
Claude Haiku 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.30 output per 1M tokens for Ling 2.6 Flash. That is roughly 16.7x on output cost alone. Ling 2.6 Flash gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for Claude Haiku 4.5.
Claude Haiku 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 59 to 44.
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.3 versus 27. Ling 2.6 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.